Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lasbela at Hub, for offenses under Section 17(4) of the Offenses Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and seven years rigorous imprisonment for attempted robbery, with additional fines. The appellant filed an appeal against this conviction, challenging the judgment based on the argument that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. ----Issues: 1- Whether the identification parade and the testimony of the sole eyewitness were reliable and credible. 2- Whether the recovery of the crime weapon and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report were sufficient to convict the appellant. 3- Whether the trial court's judgment was based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The identification parade was not conducted according to established legal standards, and the testimony of the sole eyewitness was found to be unreliable and not confidence-inspiring. The court also noted that the recovery of the crime weapon was from a co-convict and not directly linked to the appellant. The FSL report was deemed irrelevant because the empty shell and the weapon were sent together, which raised concerns about potential manipulation. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the trial court's judgment was based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. Therefore, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was overturned, and the appellant was acquitted. ----Citations/Precedents: Shafqat Mehmood and Others vs. The State (2011 SCMR 537) Muhammad Akram Rahi and Others vs. The State and Others (2011 SCMR 877) Ghazanfar Ali Alias Pappu and Another vs. The State (2012 SCMR 215) Kanwar Anwaar Ali (PLJ 2019 SC(Cr.C.) 153) Azhar Mehmood and Others vs. The State (2017 SCMR 135) Ghulam Shabbir Ahmed and Another vs. The State (2011 SCMR 683) Ali Sher and Others vs. The State (2008 SCMR 707) Mushtaq and 3 Others vs. The State (2008 PLD SC 1) Muhammad Farooq and Another vs. The State (2006 SCMR 1707) Muhammad Mansha vs. The State (2018 SCMR 772)

Summary: This case involves an appeal against the conviction and sentence of Muhammad and Muhammad Ashraf, the appellants, who were accused of committing Qatl-e-Amad (intentional murder) under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), along with charges under Section 457 for trespassing and other related offenses. The case stemmed from the murder of Muhammad Uris, and the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Badin. Issues: Whether the appellants were rightly convicted based on the evidence provided. Whether the trial court followed due process in evaluating the evidence and testimonies. Whether the failure to cross-examine or produce key witnesses affected the fairness of the trial. Whether the appellants' appeal should be accepted, resulting in acquittal, given the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. Court's Analysis: Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies: The court reviewed the statements of the main witnesses, PWs 2 to 4 (the family of the deceased) and found significant contradictions between their statements in court and those recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The witnesses changed key details, such as where the murder occurred (inside or outside the room) and whether they saw the accused commit the crime. These discrepancies seriously undermined the prosecution's case. Delay in Reporting and Recording Statements: The First Information Report (FIR) was filed several hours after the incident, and statements from key witnesses were recorded 27 days later. The court found this delay unexplained and noted that such a significant delay, combined with the changes in witness testimonies, raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution's story. Failure to Produce Crucial Evidence and Witnesses: The court noted the absence of key investigative actions, such as the failure to collect blood-stained earth from the crime scene or to properly document the presence of a light source (such as a bulb) through which the witnesses allegedly saw the accused. Additionally, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) was not produced for cross-examination, which deprived the defense of a critical opportunity to challenge the investigation. Contradictory Behavior of Witnesses: The court expressed concern over the behavior of witnesses, who initially failed to name the accused due to alleged fear but later identified them after the arrest. The court found it implausible that the family members of the deceased would not disclose the identity of the murderers for such an extended period. Application of Legal Principles: The court applied the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything), noting that the witnesses' contradictions on material points made their entire testimony unreliable. The court emphasized that in criminal cases, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, especially when the prosecution's evidence is weak and inconsistent. Judgment: The Federal Shariat Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted that the trial court had misread the evidence, and the investigation was flawed. As a result, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were honorably acquitted of all charges. The appellants' bail bonds were discharged. Observations: The court noted serious deficiencies in the trial process, including the excessive time taken (seven years) to conclude the trial, frequent adjournments, and the failure of both the defense counsel and the trial court to adequately protect the rights of the accused. The court criticized the Investigating Officer and prosecution for their poor handling of the case and recommended that the judgment be forwarded to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Sindh for further review of the trial judge's conduct. Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were quashed. The court issued directives for the judgment to be noted in the personal file of the trial judge for accountability.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: This case involves two appellants who were convicted by the Trial Court for the offenses of murder, robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm under sections 302(b)/34, 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), and section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, along with section 15 of the Arms Act, 2013. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and additional terms for the various charges. The appellants challenged the validity and legality of the trial court's judgment, leading to this appeal in the Federal Shariat Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the recovery of the alleged stolen items and the firearm was admissible and could be linked to the appellants. 3- Whether the appellants were wrongfully convicted based on inadequate or tainted evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of evidence linking the appellants to the crime. The Court found that the circumstantial evidence was tainted and insufficient to support the conviction. As such, the conviction and sentences of the appellants were set aside. The Court reasoned that: The complainant's subsequent statement, which implicated the appellants, was inconsistent with his initial report and appeared to be an afterthought. The Call Data Record (CDR) lacked proper authentication and did not establish a direct connection between the appellants and the crime. The recovery of the stolen items and the firearm was dubious, with significant delays and procedural flaws that cast doubt on their admissibility. The prosecution's reliance on joint recovery was inadmissible, and the chain of custody for the evidence was broken, rendering it unreliable. The medical evidence, while confirming the cause of death, did not corroborate the prosecution's narrative linking the appellants to the murder. The appeals were accepted, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case. -----Citations/Precedents: 2018 YLR 2363 (FSC) 2018 P.Cr.L.J Note 180 (FSC) 2017 SCMR 986 2015 SCMR 155 2011 SCMR 323 2008 SCMR 707 PLD 2008 SC 349 2016 SCMR 274 2017 P.Cr.L.J 114 2008 SCMR 707 2018 SCMR 2039 PLD 2016 SC 951 2006 SCMR 1707 1999 SCJ 502 2018 SCMR 772 PLD 1987 Quetta 77 PLD 2006 SC 87 PLD 1993 FSC 44 PLD 2017 SCMR 986

Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for charges including murder, attempted murder, robbery, and causing injuries during a robbery incident. The incident occurred on the night of March 26, 2012, when the appellants, along with other accomplices, allegedly robbed a house and engaged in a shootout with villagers, resulting in the death of one villager and an accomplice. The appellants appealed against their conviction, arguing that they were falsely implicated and that there were discrepancies in the prosecution's case. -----Issues: 1- Was the conviction of the appellants by the trial court based on credible and consistent evidence? 2- Did the defense present any plausible alternative explanation that could create reasonable doubt? 3- Should the sentence be reduced considering the circumstances and time already served by the appellants? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The Court found that the prosecution had presented consistent, coherent, and credible evidence through the testimony of witnesses, which was not successfully challenged during cross-examination. The Court rejected the defense's claims of false implication and found no contradictions or discrepancies in the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court saw no grounds for reducing the sentence, given the gravity of the offenses committed by the appellants. The appeal was dismissed.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sibi, which acquitted the respondent, Aman Ullah, from the charge of theft under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The case originated from an FIR lodged on April 16, 2008, by Dr. Muhammad Ismail, alleging that Aman Ullah, along with three others, stole transformers, a mobile phone, and bicycles from his agricultural land. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent based on the evidence presented. 2- Whether the alleged confession by the respondent, made while in police custody, was admissible and credible. 3- Whether the discrepancies in the investigation and witness testimonies affected the prosecution's case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court upheld the acquittal of Aman Ullah, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Key factors influencing the decision included: --Confession in Custody: The alleged confession made by Aman Ullah while in police custody was deemed inadmissible under Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as it was not made before a Magistrate and lacked corroborative evidence. --Witness Testimonies: There were significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the timing of the FIR and the investigation. These discrepancies raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's case. --Principle of Doubt: The court emphasized that even a single circumstance creating doubt about the guilt of the accused entitles the accused to benefit from that doubt, as established in the precedent cases cited. As a result, the court concluded that the trial court's judgment of acquittal was based on sound reasoning and did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was maintained. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Mansha vs. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Tariq Pervez vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Ghulam Qadir and 2 others vs. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Muhammad Akram vs. The State (2009 SCMR 230) Muhammad Zaman vs. The State (2014 SCMR 749) Sheo Swarup and others vs. King Emperor (A.I.R. 1934 P.C. 227(2)) Ghulam Sikandar and another vs. Mamraz Khan and others (P.L.D. 1985 S.C. 11) Fazalur Rehman vs. Abdul Ghani and another (P.L.D. 1977 S.C. 529) The State and others vs. Abdul Khaliq and others (P.L.D. 2011 S.C. 554) Azhar Ali vs. The State (P.L.D. 2010 S.C. 632) Khadim Hussain vs. Manzoor Hussain Shah and 3 others (2002 SCMR 261) Fateh Muhammad Kobhar vs. Sabzal and 4 others (2013 P.Cr.L.J 374) Mst. Salma Bibi vs. Niaz alias Billa and 2 others (2011 P.Cr.L.J 856 (FSC)) Ghulam Hussain alias Hussain Bakhsh and 4 others vs. The State and another (P.L.D. 1994 S.C. 31) Qurban Hussain alias Ashiq vs. The State (2010 SCMR 1592) Intizar Hussain vs. Hamza Ameer and others (2017 SCMR 633)

Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: The appellant was convicted by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, South, Karachi, for the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl, Sakinat-ul-Huda alias Sonoo. The appellant was sentenced to death, 25 years of rigorous imprisonment under the Hudood Ordinance for rape, and 7 years of rigorous imprisonment for concealing evidence. The appellant filed an appeal against the conviction, and the trial court referred the death sentence to the Federal Shariat Court for confirmation. -----Issues: 1- Was the confessional statement of the appellant voluntary and admissible? 2- Did the prosecution prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence? 3- Should the conviction under section 201 of the Penal Code for concealing evidence be upheld? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Confessional Statement: The court found that the confessional statement was voluntarily made and recorded following proper legal procedures. The magistrate who recorded the statement ensured that the appellant was not under any pressure or inducement, and all necessary warnings were given. The statement was consistent with other circumstantial evidence, including the medical report confirming rape and murder. --Circumstantial Evidence: The court reviewed the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen evidence, the recovery of the deceased’s body parts from the appellant's rented house, and the forensic report linking the appellant to the crime. The court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was unbroken and conclusively pointed to the appellant’s guilt. --Conviction for Concealing Evidence: The court found that there was no evidence or confessional statement indicating that the appellant had deliberately concealed evidence to avoid detection. As such, the conviction under section 201 of the Penal Code was set aside. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences under sections 302(b) of the Penal Code and section 10(3) of the Hudood Ordinance were upheld. The death sentence was confirmed by the court, and the appellant was ordered to be hanged by the neck until dead. The conviction under section 201 of the Penal Code was set aside. -----Citations/Precedents: Imran Dully and Another vs. The State and Others (2015 SCMR 155) Hashim Qasim and Another vs. The State (2017 SCMR 986) Muhammad Abid vs. The State and Another (PLD 2018 SC 813) Mst. Askar Jan and Others vs. Muhammad Daud and Others (2010 SCMR 1604) Azeem Khan and Another vs. Mujahid Khan and Others (2016 SCMR 274) These precedents emphasize the necessity of adhering to legal procedures in recording confessions and the importance of an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The petitioner challenged the judgments of the lower courts, which convicted and sentenced him under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner was arrested on October 13, 2016, after police allegedly found 25 bottles of liquor in his car during a routine vehicle check. The trial court sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. The petitioner contended that the case was fabricated and that there were several procedural irregularities in the investigation and trial. -----Issues: 1- Was the conviction of the petitioner justified based on the evidence presented? 2- Did the prosecution fail to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt? 3- Was the delay in sending the sample for chemical analysis detrimental to the prosecution's case? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Justification of Conviction: The court found that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies and procedural lapses. The car allegedly containing the contraband was never produced in court, and the person accompanying the petitioner was neither arrested nor examined. Furthermore, the police delayed sending the sample for chemical analysis by 18 days, which cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence. --Failure to Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The contradictory statements of the police officers and the absence of independent witnesses further weakened the prosecution's case. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case conclusively, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. --Delay in Chemical Analysis: The court noted that the delay in sending the sample for chemical analysis was a significant lapse. The fact that only a small portion of the alleged contraband was tested, while the rest was not, undermined the reliability of the evidence. The court referred to previous judgments that required representative samples to be tested to prove the entire contraband was illicit. The revision petition was accepted, and the petitioner was acquitted of all charges. The court ordered the discharge of his bail bonds and absolved the surety from liability. -----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Parvez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1997 SCMR 25) Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Ameer Zeb vs. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380) Faridullah vs. The State (2013 SCMR 302) Shakeel vs. The State (PLD 1998 SC AJ & K 31) Yasin alias Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2008 SCMR 336) These precedents highlight the necessity of proving every aspect of the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt and the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards during criminal investigations and trials.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshoro, dated February 21, 2007, convicting the appellants under Section 392 PPC read with Section 17(3) of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Both appellants were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 each, with a default sentence of 18 months. The initial appeals were transferred to the Federal Shariat Court for adjudication due to the application of Hudood Laws. ----Issues: --Validity of Identification: Whether the identification of the accused, conducted after their arrest, was valid and legally acceptable. --Delay in FIR Lodging: Whether the delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR had a detrimental impact on the prosecution's case and if it was adequately explained. --Contradictions in Evidence: Whether there were significant contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence that affected the trial's fairness. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Validity of Identification: The court found the identification parade insufficient due to procedural lapses. The identification of the accused after their arrest and without proper documentation did not meet legal standards. The failure to conduct a proper identification parade before a magistrate affected the credibility of the witnesses' identification. --Delay in FIR Lodging: The court noted significant delay in lodging the FIR, which was not adequately explained. The complainant's conflicting statements about when and how the FIR was lodged, coupled with the lack of recovery of the alleged stolen property, raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s case. --Contradictions in Evidence: The court observed that there were material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. Issues included discrepancies in the location of the incident, the timing of the FIR, and the identification of the accused. The court found that these discrepancies, combined with procedural irregularities, undermined the prosecution's case. The court decided to set aside the impugned judgment, acquitting the appellants of all charges due to the reasonable doubt cast by the inconsistencies and legal deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. -----Citations/Precedents: Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal and another (2011 SCMR 527) Gulfam and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 1189) Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State (2004 SCMR 1185) Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. and others (PLD 2007 SC 539) Mst. Shehnaz alias Asma alias Rani and another v. The State (2010 PCr.LJ 231) Ghulam Qadir v. The State and another (2002 PCr.LJ 2007)

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: An individual was convicted for involvement in a dacoity under Section 395 PPC and possession of stolen property under Section 412 PPC. The conviction was based on allegations that the individual participated in a robbery where cash, gold, and other items were stolen. The trial court sentenced the individual to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fines, with additional imprisonment for failure to pay the fines. Five co-accused were acquitted following a settlement with the complainant, who chose not to prosecute them further. -----Issues: 1- Whether the evidence used to convict the appellant was sufficient given that the same evidence led to the acquittal of other co-accused. 2- Whether the acquittal of co-accused based on a compromise with the complainant impacts the validity of the conviction for the appellant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court overturned the conviction, citing a misreading of evidence and a miscarriage of justice. The Court reasoned that the evidence used for convicting the appellant was the same as that used for acquitting the co-accused, which was contradictory and unjust. The principle of "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" was applied, meaning that if evidence is disbelieved in the case of co-accused, it cannot be used to convict the appellant. The complainant's inconsistent stance and the lack of independent corroborative evidence further supported the decision to acquit the appellant. Consequently, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellant was granted the benefit of doubt and released from incarceration. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Afzal vs. The State (2017 SCMR 1645) Munir Ahmad and another vs. The State and another (2019 SCMR 79) Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 200 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 238-L of 2013

Summary: Definition of "Qazf" and "Zina": ---- Facts: The case stems from a complaint filed by Shamim Kousar under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance VIII of 1979 against Fareha Bokhari. The complaint alleged that Bokhari had used the derogatory term "عورت آواره" (which can mean "immoral woman") against Shamim Kousar in a written application to a military office. The trial court summoned Bokhari as an accused based on this application, leading her to file a revision petition in the Federal Shariat Court. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the term "عورت آواره" constitutes an imputation of "Zina" under the Offence of Qazf Ordinance VIII of 1979. ---2) Whether the trial court properly assessed the sufficiency of the evidence before summoning Bokhari as an accused. ---3) Whether the summoning order should be quashed based on the lack of sufficient grounds. --- Court's Analysis: Definition of "Qazf" and "Zina": The court first examined the legal definitions of "Qazf" (false accusation of adultery or fornication) and "Zina" (unlawful sexual intercourse), as provided under Ordinances VII and VIII of 1979. For an accusation to qualify as "Qazf," it must explicitly or implicitly suggest the commission of "Zina." ---- Interpretation of "عورت آواره": The court analyzed the term "عورت آواره" using the Feroze-ul-Laghat Urdu dictionary, which assigns meanings such as "immoral" and "wayward." However, the court concluded that the term does not explicitly impute "Zina." While it may carry derogatory connotations, it does not satisfy the strict legal threshold required to constitute "Qazf" under the Hudood Ordinances. --- Sufficiency of Grounds for Summoning: The court noted that under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court must find sufficient grounds to summon a person as an accused. Given that the term "عورت آواره" does not constitute an accusation of "Zina," the trial court's order to summon Bokhari was found to be legally flawed. ---- Rejection of the Respondent’s Arguments: The court dismissed the respondent’s argument that public perception should be considered when interpreting such terms. It emphasized that legal definitions must be applied strictly in cases involving Hadd offenses, which are governed by divine law and not public interpretation. --- Judgment: The Federal Shariat Court found that the trial court had failed to apply the correct legal standards in summoning Bokhari. It ruled that the term "عورت آواره" does not constitute an accusation of "Zina" and therefore cannot form the basis for a Qazf complaint. Consequently, the court accepted the revision petition, set aside the trial court’s order, and dismissed the complaint filed by Shamim Kousar. --- Outcome: The revision petition was accepted. The trial court's order summoning Fareha Bokhari as an accused was quashed. The complaint under Qazf Ordinance VIII of 1979 was dismissed.